Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Ride with the Devil (I) (1999)
9/10
Authentic Civil War
10 August 2001
Ride With the Devil has something rich and special, if you can stand the slow development. While tackling a dark, gritty subject, the brutal guerrilla war in the American West during its Civil War (which in turned spawned the outlaws of the old west of the 1870s), the movie maintains a strangely satisfying, unmanipulated atmosphere. What I'm refering to is the tendency of films' music and lighting to make you feel the mood you'd expect to feel. But RWTD instead has a relatively upbeat soundtrack, and lets the words and action do the talking set the mood rather than manipulation of the viewer's senses.

As an enthusast of this particular area of CW history, I'm greatly impressed with the accuracy of the film. The diologue is expertly written, (even with subtle humor occasionally) with references to bushwhackers and previous boarder battles (Independence for example...A far cry from the Oregon Trail!). The minor events that occur to Jake's band are similar to actual events that took place...Especially the attack when they're holed up in the house, and the destruction of the store/booth. The battle scenes, though rare, are pretty well executed. It even has the first CW cavalry battle put on film recently.

The directing shows the talent everyone expects of Ang Lee in subtle ways. Example: The character of Black John is shown taunting a Lawrence resident during the massacre: "Where's your army? Who are we to fight!? Who are we to fight?! (The shot then switches to a trio of Confederate Regulars standing, doing nothing to stop the carnage while the voice continues) You are cowards all!" Who are the cowards, really? Little touches like that really enhance the movie's quality.

There are no major glaring areas in the history, something that can not be said of the masterpiece of film Glory, which was basically fiction within the context of the major events it follows. Some minor problems include the fact that the years as shown by the events represented don't add up. But you will never notice that. A larger curiosity is the fact that the only African-American man-at-arms character in the film is the quasi-slave fighting for Jake and his Confederate bushwhackers. It is true that some blacks did fight for the Confederacy out there, including one who scouted Lawrence for Quantrill before the attack (Who would suspect him?). Though this black rebel is a fasinating character (whatever PC African-Americans might think of him), not a single black Union infantryman is seen in the film, which would have been more represenative of the black experience in the Western CW. One of the first black regiments of the CW was raised in Kansas (by the murderer Senator Jim Lane, and before the 54th Mass. Reg. of fame was organized), and black troops in such battles as Baxter Springs, KS, played a critical role.

No glaring historical errors. Good, realistic action, which is infrequent and not gratitous. Good Directing. This film may not be the blockbusters other recent Civil War were, but it's the cleanest job of any.
13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Little Rain on the "Best Western Ever" Parade
7 August 2001
Two words: Pure Fantasy. As the Civil War in the far West (on the Kansas/Missouri boarder) holds special interest to me, I found this film to be so unbearably bad that I couldn't finish. Yes, I know everyone hates the people who review without finishing a movie, and know too many histroical details to suspend a little belief. In that case, let me express the praise that it is the only film to my knowledge featuring Senator Lane, correctly portrayed as a brutal murderer, and Terrill, the outlaw who in real life slayed Quantrill. The boarder wars were the most horrendous part of the CW, but here we have all the attrocities on the Union side, with the Conferderates as innocent patriots. Union militia Red legs, (the worst of whom would never knowingly harm a woman or child) murder Easton's character's family, and bushwhackers taking (Glenville Dodge) surrender offer at the end of the war are Gatling gunned down (not that they had any Gatling guns out there at that time) something which didn't happen, even to the worst of the bushwhackers. Ever wonder why "Bloody Bill" Anderson, portrayed sympathetically in this film, got his nickname? He killed a dozen plus men in the Lawrence Massacre, raped a slave girl, tied dozens of scalps to his horse bridal, tought his horse to trample people, brutally murdered unarmed soldiers at Centrilia...among other things. Yeah, I know you all will hate this comment, because I myself get irritated when people point out massive plot holes in movies I enjoyed. But I wonder why Eastwood didn't just set the movie outside CW history altogether if he wasn't going to make the slightest effort to get it right. For everyone who agrees with portraying the Confederates as all nice and perfect...Well, enjoy this movie, the events featured couldn't be further from the truth. Anyone who is actually interested in an accurate portrayal of the Western Civil War, see Ride With the Devil (1999). It is an excellent, balanced, haunting film, though nobody seems to know about it. And it's even told from the Confederate perspective.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Glory (1989)
The Finest Civil War Movie BUT...
2 December 2000
It would be impossible to find a more authentic looking and compelling Civil War movie, and it indeed is a fine tribute to Colonel Shaw and the 54th Massachusetts men. However, I can help but be annoyed by simplification and inaccuracy of Hollywood History. So for those who'd like an understanding of reality for the events depicted, I'll give the most important, so read on. Skip this comment if you think a movie should be entertaining and nothing else.

Strongly misrepresented at least initially is the most central of characters, Colonel Robert Gould Shaw. The filmmakers would have him be a saint, but in reality he was a complex individual. He initially refused the Colonelcy of the what was to be the 54th, before his sense of duty and honor took over. He even called himself a "Ni--er Colonel". Despite his parents being abolishionist, he had never known any blacks growing up. His ignorance should come as no surprise, and it must also be remembered that the n-word was not considered nearly as vulgar as today. As the men were trained, Shaw began to develop an affection for his men, and was quite like the character he was portrayed as at the end of the film. This is the important thing- He overcame his prejudices. The filmmakers obviously decided that the audience would get the wrong impression of Shaw if they let him know he wasn't an egalitarian from the outset. Too, they fabricated the letters read by Shaw in the movie. Shaw wrote many letters, which are a valuable insight into the war, but they are usually not philosophying or proclaiming the perfection of blacks. Like most soldiers writing home, Shaw wrote about daily life, not writing for elegengant entertainment. Also, in the film there is no mention or sight of Shaw's wife, whom he engaged shortly after accepting the Colonelcy and married shortly before moving out to South Carolina. I guess that would distract everybody from Perfect Shaw.

I'm curious of why all the 54th men besides Shaw were made composite characters rather than out of reality. There are several accounts by surviving officers and men, on which I'd imagine they could have created characters. Although Forbes is my favorite character of the film, I don't know why Ewles's character is not Lt. Colonel Edward Hallowell, who had a similar (for the movie's purpose) relationship with Shaw and looks just like him too! And a note-The 54th men aren't all perfect either-Shaw notes before leaving camp that they have had 20-30 dessertions. The film seems to imply that there were none except for those looking for shoes. I don't think less of the black fighting men because a small portion of their number were not worthy enough.

Colonel Montgomery was a very interesting man, and the flat portayal of him in the movie is not accurate. He was one of John Brown's close followers in Kansas, and while I can't be sure if he was the racist as depicted in the film, he was undoubtbly a fervent abolishionist. A true detail was his tendancy to shoot at any man who disobeyed an order.

The movie's depiction of the buring of Darien is relatively accurate. There is not a note of looting taking place as in the film, although Shaw really was shocked and greatly disapproved of the destruction of property in a town without rebels. He wasn't threatened with court martial if he refused to participate, and did not revile Montgomery either. Indeed, Shaw was awestruck by the Colonel-He admired his dedication to orders and abolition, although he was uneasy that Montgomery could be so brutal at times. Montgomery's superior in the film is named Harker-Really this is General Hunter, mentioned at the beginning of the film. Contrary again to reality, Shaw blackmails Montgomery and "Harker" into getting a combat transfer. Hunter had really already been relieved, and Shaw wrote General Strong, who he greatly admired, for permission, which was granted.

The film assault on Fort Wagner is actually very authentic, moreso than a previous comment gave in the IMD gave credit for. The size of Wagner is not exaggerated much, and Shaw did indeed ask Strong to participate. The only thing that's wrong is rather surprising-All accounts agree that Shaw was hit in the fort, not at the base of the wall as in the movie-Shouldn't saintly Shaw lead his men that far?

Now don't get me wrong, even with all these errors, I still think it's a splendid bit of work by all the actors and film staff. Still, I'd like to see Hollywood not vilify the complex or simplfy the great. Great music, cinematography, excellent battle scenes, and a perfectly executed ending, without a doubt the best done ending of a war movie possible. Enjoy the film and then go see the impressive Shaw Memorial in Boston Commons, The West Building National Gallery of Art, NY, or NH where castings are displayed!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
U-571 (2000)
Leave your brain at home to enjoy
14 June 2000
This movie is visually stunning but it helps to have no historical knowledge if you want to enjoy it. Some of the many errors: -The British captured the first two enigma machines, and the Americans didn't get their first until 1944 -In reality, U-571 sank 7 ships and was sunk with all hands off England, and S-33, sunk in the movie, was in Alaska (it survived the war) -The Germans had no surface fleet in operation during the war (other than the Bismark's ill-fated sortie)so why would they have a destroyer to chase U-571? Oh, and about the US stealing Britain's history, remember the old movie "Breaking the Sound Barrier" had an Englishman break the sound barrier. It left viewers (including the Secretary of the Air Force!) thinking that this Brit, rather than Chuck Yaeger broke the sound barrier. At least this film gave a disclaimer that it was fiction.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
See the old one first!
14 June 2000
In my mind of likes and dislikes this film is the exception to the rule that whichever version of something you see first, you will like better. After seeing this movie I rented the 1960s version, which now ranks as my favorite war movie. This new version is too surrealistic, and slowly glides from one confusing scene to another. This movie is like a long blur, and even by the end I couldn't tell one character from another. The advantages of this version over the old version: Vivid color over black and white, more detail (One scene has some P-39 Aircobras in the background on what I take to be Henderson Field), and a better diologue between Captain and Colonel when the former is relieved. However, despite these advances, I think the original will be far more enjoyed by the average filmgoer.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Far fetched and stupid
20 October 1999
The plot was way too stupid-Evil rich guy wanting to get even richer by destroying the environment while blowing up everybody who accuses him and thus proving the "Pelican Brief"? Stupid. I was turned off by the gruesome slayings...The eerie "pop" of a silenced pistol followed by lots of splattered blood or killer car bombs that make you jump out of yoursocks...Not my idea of entertainment. Unless you're an on-the-edge and/or sadistic maniac, skip this one.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Realistic, but boring
17 October 1999
This was an ok movie. It was unique, but too boring and dreamy to really enjoy. Don't get my wrong...It does an excellent job of portraying the feelings soldiers in a brutal war have, and isn't combat boring hours followed by moments of terror? Yes,they got it right but if they wanted a movie people will like, they probably shouldn't have done it that way.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fair Game (1995)
Did a teenager write the script for this?!
11 October 1999
No, a teenager couldn't have written the script for this, because a child in preschool could have done a better job! Quite possibly the worst movie I've seen this year with the exception of "1941", I was shocked by the stupidity of "Fair Game". I really think the author of the book this was based on must have just decided to make up a pointless story on a Sunday morning with only ridiculous gadgets, pointless violence, and a sexy woman to hold up this lemon.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun but incomplete
4 October 1999
I enjoyed this "movie", actually the start of an incomplete series supposed to span 65 episodes. A diehard Robotech fan, I couldn't get enough of this tape, which kept the original voices of the Robotech TV series while recreating the feel of the series even with new animators. Sadly, the story is very incomplete, since all it takes is the first 4 episodes of what would have been a series. Having read the (complete) robotech books, I know that the Sentinels are a group of aliens the SDF-3 is supposed to meet early in the Robotech II story, but despite the "Sentinels" present in the name of the movie, you don't even get a glimpse of them! I hope, probably in vain, eventually someone will pick up and finish the series.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed